Is 51 the new 60 under Senate rules?

Look past the procedural squabbling and Republican wailing over Harry Reid’s rules change and the chamber faces a simpler question: Will the 51-vote majority be a new norm in the Senate?

For a generation, the chamber has used — many would say abused — the filibuster, setting a threshold of 60 votes for doing virtually anything. In these divisive times in Washington, that means almost nothing substantive can get through the Senate. So Reid’s move last week to change Senate rules and override the parliamentarian on a simple majority has senators abuzz over what else can be changed by 51 votes and where each party will draw the line.

Text Size

-

+

reset

Reid defends rules change

POLITICO 44

While the actual change amounted to a relatively minor tweak of Senate floor procedures, the tactics Reid used to force through a rules change by 51 votes — rather than 67 votes — could be replicated by future majorities. That means if future majorities believe Senate minorities are unfairly abusing Senate rules, they’ll be more apt to find ways to bypass the 60-vote requirement. And that could have enormous implications for major national laws — like health care reform — which could suddenly face a simple majority for repeal if Republicans take control of the Senate.

“If we get into the majority, in which I anticipate we will, this completely freezes out the minority, which is where the Democrats will find themselves,” Texas Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told POLITICO. “So I think it’s very shortsighted.”

“The dispute was just a reflection of where we are and both sides feeling like they’re being treated unfairly by the other side,” said Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who supported the change in the Senate’s precedent.

Reid said Tuesday that his move was designed to restore comity in the Senate and shut down a stall tactic that has no bearing on the outcome of legislation. And in the spirit of soothing tensions, he began phoning Republican senators — including the likes of conservative freshman Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) — to join Democrats in a rare bipartisan closed-door meeting.

Reid and his aides insist that the change will not intrude on the minority party’s rights.

“The Senate rule change we made last week has been inaccurately described … as a resort to the ‘nuclear option,’” Reid wrote in a guest column in The Washington Post on Tuesday. “But rather than a nuclear option that would have forever altered the character of the Senate by limiting the minority’s ability to challenge legislation, the change we made Thursday was a return to order.”

Changing Senate rules — including how the filibuster is governed — typically takes two-thirds of the Senate’s support, a virtually impossible hurdle to clear. But the Senate’s precedents can be set by a simple majority, effectively trumping the rules.

So last week, Reid lined up Democratic senators to vote to effectively overturn the decision of the parliamentarian, who serves as the Senate’s official referee. By a simple majority of 51 senators, Democrats established a new precedent in the body. It’s a rarely used maneuver to overturn the parliamentarian — it hasn’t happened in 11 years — and it’s been avoided by both parties for fear of the consequences.

It is no surprise that Harry Reid would want to change the rules if he doesn't get his way, irregardless of the impact on future decisions. The Democratic party has become the most intolerant community when all are not in agreement with it. Name calling, oppression, racism and straight out censorship are some of the things that I have to deal with on a day to day basis living in the state of Nevada with a Democratice legislature. Oh and do not try to post to the Las Vegas Sun without your name, address, birthdate and a personal phone call from the editor for word approval.

harry reid is taking his cues from obama. They have transformed the senate and the executive branch into a dictatorship. The same was true of the house with pelosi in charge. A really simple fix to this nonsense is for both houses to have rules that will not allow amendments to bills that have nothing to do with the bill being voted on. Another thing that needs to be changed is the automatic raises for all senators and representatives. This is unbelievably bad.

President Obama only lost two Democratic votes: that's hardly a failure now that Republicans (and those two Democrats) will have to vote for every part of the jobs act, issue by issue. At last we'll all see where they stand.

The filibuster is as old as democracy itself. In Rome a Senator was allowed to continue at length to continue the debate and hold up a vote. Similar practices exist today in US, UK and Canada which allow debate to continue until they leave the floor or a vote to remove the minority opinion's rights to continue debate.

The difference today is that we have political parties that support its members' filibustering. Where one person filibusters or places a hold the entire party stands with them. It has regularly been used by both parties. More often in the past 2 decades.

Changing the filibuster is not the solution. Changing our party politics work is the solution. Restrict the powers of the majority and minority leaders and their whips. Take the schedule away from the Majority Leader. Defund the DSCC and NRSC so they can't grant or deny campaign money to force loyalty to the party.

Allow the chamber to be the elder statesmen's chamber that can think beyond the next 2-year election cycle (1 year if you count campaigning, none if you count special elections.) Allow them to consider the Houses' proposals from the perspective of the six-year and/or long-term effect.

filibuster is fine, but they should actually have to get up there and filibuster the plan like they use to. why don't we see guys talking for hours on end if they're so against it? make them do it harry.

And states will progressively continue to lose their rights in government, as was the 19th amendment that gave the people the right to vote for senators in general election vice state appointment. This is yet another step of the Senate moving away from the body it was intended to be - the final 'adult' voice that took a bill from the House and carefully evaluated it for any flaws or unintended consequences - and is forcing them into the light of populism.

Filibusters exist for a reason: to prevent bad legislation from making it through the legislative branch without careful evaluation and is the deserved right of both the Democrats and Republicans. Congratulations Harry, you're taking the steps necessary to herald the end of our Republic.

The football is on the 50 yard line, QB passes the ball, caught on the 10 yard line, receiver tackled on the 5 yard line--Touchdown. Yep we just moved the goal line to the 5 yard line. Can't score just change the rules. Next time it will be on the 10 yard line, and pretty soon you will only need to run one yard from the 50 yard line to score. Hello? If we keep changing the game how can we keep score?

"Changing Senate rules — including how the filibuster is governed — typically takes two-thirds of the Senate’s support, a virtually impossible hurdle to clear. But the Senate’s precedents can be set by a simple majority, effectively trumping the rules." Hello? I know I am a simple person but how can Senate Precedents trump the Rules? If precedents are the name of the game what do you do with the rules?

Another gimmick by Reid, the Democrats, and Obama to weasel out of negotiations. They were sent to congress and WH to lead the country not change the rules in middle of the game.

Oops, another transparency by the Democrats who can't win unless they change the rules. It won't work, the world is watching and can see through the farce.

I do not get Prince Harry. He has years of supermajority Democrat control of Congress with the SCOAMF in the WH. He could of had EVERYTHING his little heart ever desired if he'd pulled this crap in 2009. But he waits until there's a GOP House? So that a couple of losers wouldn't have to vote on StimulusXVII? Moron. And I look forward to the repeal of the entire Obama Presidency in February 2013 with a bill done under reconciliation with Harry's new rules.

Finally the Senate has crossed the Rubicon. As the Republicans, or Democrats for that matter, are unlikely to ever have the super majorities previously enjoyed by the Democrats, the only way to undue the purely partisan and unpopular legislation the Democrats bullied into law is to have a simple majority. I personally don't know which is worse, the passing of the filibuster as a check on the majority or not repealing much of the legislation democrats forced on us in 2008-2010.